<div dir="ltr">This made me quickly go over my two TrueNAS systems configuration and check on the backup. LOL.<div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:33 PM L.D. Paniak <<a href="mailto:ldpaniak@fourpisolutions.com">ldpaniak@fourpisolutions.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>The only fault of ZFS is it enables one to lose data at the PB
scale with little experience.<br>
</p>
<p>Even minimal monitoring of the array would have helped them to
avoid this episode.</p>
<p>Once you are using mechanical drives of more than a handful of
TB, RAIDZ3 vdevs are something to consider. Rebuild times are long
and bit error rates have not gone down in time.<br>
The ServeTheHome RAID reliability calculator is a useful tool
(that might make you rethink your array):<br>
<a href="https://www.servethehome.com/raid-calculator/raid-reliability-calculator-simple-mttdl-model/" target="_blank">https://www.servethehome.com/raid-calculator/raid-reliability-calculator-simple-mttdl-model/</a><br>
</p>
<div>On 2022-01-29 21:16, Jason Eckert
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I find it mind boggling that they have that much
hardware, but were too lazy to spend time properly
configuring/monitoring ZFS until it was too late.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 9:12
PM Chris Frey <<a href="mailto:cdfrey@foursquare.net" target="_blank">cdfrey@foursquare.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 08:36:43PM -0500, Mikalai Birukou via
kwlug-disc wrote:<br>
> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npu7jkJk5nM" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npu7jkJk5nM</a><br>
<br>
I don't think that has much to do with ZFS :-)<br>
<br>
I was slightly puzzled at their first move to remove the
drives that<br>
were still working but had errors. With that many failed
disks in the<br>
array, wouldn't it have been a better strategy to try to get
everything<br>
into a good state before replacing entire drives?<br>
<br>
- Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
kwlug-disc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org" target="_blank">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a><br>
<a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
kwlug-disc mailing list
<a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org" target="_blank">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a>
<a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org" target="_blank">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
kwlug-disc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org" target="_blank">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a><br>
<a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>